Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Scriptorium
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 339 active users here.

Contents

Announcements[edit]

Open access papers and annotation[edit]

A technical proposal is posted for discussion at d:Wikidata:WikiFactMine/Annotation for fact mining. For more general context, see w:User:Charles Matthews/Facto Post#Editorial annotations.

Wikisource rightly comes up in these discussions: see the proposal's talk page. Please contribute there, if this area interests you. Debate on open access papers is nothing new here: this time I'm hoping for some progress. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Internet archive in collaboration with mentalfloss.com is publishing some obscure books[edit]

This article provides additional information in greater detail.Ineuw talk 07:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

More info on the availability of books out of printIneuw talk 08:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This ties into the discussion below, #Consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyrite law)Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Thanks for the link. It goes to show how much can be learned by scrolling further down. Unfortunately, I get lost in the variety of topics, especially dealing with copyright, so I stick with public domain. — Ineuw talk 18:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey started today, and already Wikisource has two proposals! But we need more... so come on over to Meta and tell the world what cool new tool or bugfix we need. Anyone can propose anything, anytime till the 19th of November, and then voting on the proposals will begin on the 27th. Sam Wilson 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Proposal to have transclusion tab in Page namespace[edit]

Some Wikisources have a transclusion tab (a book icon) at the top of the Page namespace, beside the index (up-arrow) tab. Clicking it takes you to the Mainspace chapter where that page is transcluded. This is a handy gadget, obtained by installing the mul:MediaWiki:TranscludedIn.js. In English Wikisource, you have to follow a roundabout way if you want to visit from a Page: to the transcluded chapter: you can navigate the TOC from the index page or the root page in Mainspace, after knowing the chapter number. If there is no TOC and you have not created an AuxTOC, then such navigation is very problematic. I propose that this gadget be included in English Wikisource. Hrishikes (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How would this work when the page is transcluded in more than one location? For example, (a) a poem that is transcluded both as part of a book and as a poem in its own right, or (b) an encyclopedia page that has sections transcluded separately to more than one mainspace article? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
There will be multiple transclusion tabs in such a case. e.g., this page. Hrishikes (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
What limits the number of tabs if a page is transcluded in multiple locations? Some encyclopedia pages have eight or more articles, and that many extra tabs becomes cumbersome, especially on mobile devices and smaller monitors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not know the limit. The vast majority of pages won't have more than three tabs. However, I think it should be possible to tweak the gadget so that specific works (like encyclopedias and dictionaries) are excluded from its purview. Maybe @Samwilson: can say? Hrishikes (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I think converting it to a drop down when there's more than one would be a great way to go. Shouldn't be too hard. And I agree with @Billinghurst below that this should just be a gadget that people can enable if they want. It's a thing I've been wanting for years! Sam Wilson 01:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any limit. I wonder how hard it would be to modify it to be a drop-down? I've made a local copy for sandboxing at User:Beleg Tâl/TranscludedIn.js. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment we should not have it by default, if it is to be used, it should be available as a gadget. Of course, people can install it themselves directly via their global or common javascript pages. We should be looking to not impose more javascript onto people than is necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportCiridae (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The best way now to navigate to the transcluding pages is to click the "What links here" link. Since not many pages link to the Page namespace, it's always easy to find the page you're looking for, such as from this list. I agree with Billinghurst that it would be better to make the transclusion tabs optional. Mudbringer (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As optional gadget. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, as optional gadget. --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Optional gadget not required, IMO, because users can add it to their common.js (as I have done), and it will work fine. Hrishikes (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyrite law)[edit]

Since the Internet Archive is the first institution to exploit this feature of America's arcane and backwards copyrite law, I suggest we be the second: Section 108h of the U.S. Code allows libraries to scan and make available materials published 1923 to 1941 if they are not being actively sold. One immediate objection I see is that it would introduce overhead on our part to determine if a work is actively being sold. On the contrary, I would suggest that this is no different than a DMCA request: assume that a work is not (most aren't), use basic common sense for due diligence, and then let someone else complain if he thinks we are hosting something we shouldn't be. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource does far more than just scan works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated! not too hard to determine if in print. do a alibris / amazon / worldcat. and a search for non-renewal is not too hard. and internet archive is doing the search and hosting. however, this community would never agree to such a librarian standard of practice. in 2 years we will start counting up anyway. do you have any orphans before 1941 of interest? Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the proposal is changing the underlying predication of Wikisource in that we would be moving to a non-commercial type license, something akin to PD-1941-NC. These works would be unable to be taken from our site and reproduced as all our existing works can be. How would you differentiate between those works that can and those that cannot be commercialised? — billinghurst sDrewth
    As a follow-up, I am not opposed to the exploration of this matter, I just think that it needs a reasoned proposal, not a "dump and run". If it is going to be a dump and run, then I propose that it is moved to the bottom of this page. @Koavf: if you are going to put together something which we can explore and look through nuanced argument, then I look forward to your proposal. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: Not sure what you mean--I left this here for feedback. I don't know what more you want. I could respond to every person the moment he posts but I wanted to elicit some discussion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Koavf: But you left it in the "Proposals" section. If you just wanted feedback and a discussion, then this isn't a Proposal but a discussion topic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @EncycloPetey: Because it would mean a pretty fundamental change to our approach to works here. It isn't just an idle chat about issues tangentially related to Wikisource but a way to refactor some of what we do and which would require some broad consensus, re-writing policy pages, etc. If other users think it's a non-starter (and clearly, several do), then the community is rejecting my proposed changes and it's just food for thought. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Koavf: I think you've missed what first billinghurst meant, and my response to your question said. You made a "suggestion" or "comment", whereas a "proposal" is usually a more formal sort of presentation than what you posted. So billinghurst was pointing out that it didn't seem appropriate to post in the Proposals section (and I agree) because it's more a passing thought or idea than a formal proposal. So what you asked "not sure what you mean", I was trying to help answer that question. Yes, your "suggestion" involves a fundamental change, but that doesn't make it a "proposal". A proposal would be a formal well thought out and fully reasoned presentation for the community, rather than a passing thought about a big change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Proposed license is NOT compatible with 'free' licensing terms which permit commerical use. Any works uploaded would have to be locally hosted in any event, as the above would be a non-starter on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That is an interesting approach, though I am not sure that it is a reasoned approach. Some thoughts to consider:
  • We host works that are not copyright in the US, yet some of these are still copyright in their home country, and we have both text and image as they cannot be at Commons.
  • We do not host some works as they have copyright in the US, even though they are out of copyright in their home country.
  • WMF has a broad scope to copyright and licensing and how they see that it applies and give latitude to how wikis can apply. It is a range, and up and down the range different conditions apply.
  • We license all of our works with the conditions that apply to their hosting, and their re-use. It is our rule about not allowing "non-commercial" or not having "fair use", it is not WMF's.
  • There are ways that we could differentiate non-commercial works from commercial works if we chose a different approach.
So how about a reasoned and logical debate, not an emotional one, or one that hinges on a dogma. Wikisource should develop, and that development should be in line with the scope of the WMF and its development. We should not be frozen in time. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is WMF's rule about not allowing non-commercial. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy says "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above." And any emphasis on a logical debate is deceptive; the question is about deciding what our ultimate goals are, and logic can't advance that question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
actually WMF does allow non-commercial works per "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status." maybe we could have a proposal for pre-1941 works not in print?
thank-you for being honest about the appeal to emotion, rather than appeal to reasom. Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The page describes how EDPs should be used as:
"3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. ... Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.
4. ... They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content."
Yes, your appeal that we should maximize the volume of works we can work on is no more an appeal to reason than my appeal to staying with free works. Rationally we can speak of the value of a small set of works that we may be forced to take down if they come back in print, versus the huge universe of pre-1923 work that is untouchable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
you can call a fair use of the "orphan work out of print before 1941" an ideology if you want, but it is an ideology shared by the hathi trust and internet archive. they will do the work of selection, and we could support them. these are low risk items, that we can make available to the public, as a part of the sum of all knowledge. - they are partners i can collaborate with, unlike the FSF. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
A couple of examples of works that could fit within the EDP doctine, and I do preface that it is a little opening and possibly one that would take too much explaining to make it useful and sustainable.
  • works that are out of copyright in their home country, and that are out of print;
  • compiled works that are not copyrighted for parent work, though may contain work that is within copyright within US; traditionally we have blanked those components in our transcription, be they chapters or images.
As a question, does anyone know why there is an 1941 cutoff? I haven't seen mention of why the 75 years is pertinent. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Because, books published upto 1941, with 95 years' copyright, are within last 20 years of their copyright; and thus covered under 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Hrishikes (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • a lot of the works will be US home country, but out of print, and orphaned, so we do not know who the copyright holder is (although hathi trust found some subsequently) see also w:Orphan works in the United States
  • are you agreeing to a fair use of the lesser term? the Canadians and Chinese would be happy to agree with you.
  • compilations are rare compared to the orphan ocean. we can also do a copyright search for non-renewal, but this is not "untouchable", the rules are too complicated for bright lines, but we can show our work as a standard of practice. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the EDP, the only WS project I could find with a more-or-less clear stance is the French Wikisource, which allows both local uploads (like most except Japanese and Dutch) and, unusually, non-free content (which is discouraged, but some content is fair-use in French law; see this and this if you read French). Perhaps someone with a good command of French could research how they operate regarding these matters for ideas? Inatan (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Other than these "Last 20" books, I would like to draw attention to another class of books, already mentioned by @Billinghurst:, which are PD-home country but not PD-URAA. Such books are now allowed in Commons. Internet Archive has a good number, especially after the large-scale addition of DLI books. In case of Indian works, two types are now allowed here (exc. Govt woks & CC): Books published before 1923 and books by authors who died before 1941. If we allow PD-home country, then books of authors who died in 1941-1956 can be allowed, which is a huge number of books. For countries that are 70 pma (like UK), books by authors who died before 1947 can be allowed. This will considerably enrich the English Wikisource (e.g., by having the post-1923 works of Rabindranath Tagore and the books of hunting by Jim Corbett, among others). These are already allowed in Commons, so we may also consider. Hrishikes (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support conditionally when considering m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term#Orphan works for non-American works only. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this for orphan American works.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course, I support any extension of our scope. Yann (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per ShakespeareFan00. Perhaps this proposal would be more appropriate over at Wikilivres. NMaia (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @NMaia: Wikilivres is in Canada. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment wikilivres is no more; it is now https://biblio.wiki/wiki/Main_Page - it could be appropriate here, but you choose to wall yourself off from the decisions of hathi trust, and commons. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral; looks like a lot of bother and confusion for a handful of obscure works, but if people want to establish a clear policy or EDP that works with our existing policies and frameworks then go for it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment you should expect a periodic questioning of why no EDP, as naive people see work that very well could be done, but is not, for a lack of it. i am not confused. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for the addition of an OPDS catalog for our works[edit]

While there are certainly issues with how we convert our works here to ebook files, there are very definite advantages to reading books locally rather than on a website. Mainly there are facilities that are provided by various ebook readers that can't be implemented on a website and the fact that a large portion of the world does not have access to a reliable internet connection yet. An OPDS catalog will allow people to easily search for and download the works that they may want to read later. What do you think? Can we implement this? How much work would it require? And if it can be implemented, which works do we make available first? Ciridae (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's sort of supported in toolforge:wsexport, I think, but I'm not sure it works. I've also experimented with adding it to toolforge:ws-search but it's certainly not working yet—I don't think it'd take much to improve it though. Do you have experience with using OPDS? I've only ever used it with FBreader on android. I know that Standard Ebooks supports it for their epubs. Sam Wilson 07:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I've only really worked on Atom, never OPDS directly, but on a technical level OPDS itself doesn't seem too complicated. I, however, have no experience working with Wikisource on a technical level. We could, perhaps, build a page with the required XML and have a bot update it regularly based on some criteria. Maybe a template added to the Talk or Index Talk page of the work? Ciridae (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ciridae: Yeah, I reckon we can figure it out! :-) I've found a validator, e.g. here's the OPDS of all of Kipling's works: http://opds-validator.appspot.com/?uri=https://tools.wmflabs.org/ws-search/?author=Rudyard+Kipling&lang=en&output_format=opds and so can start working through what data is required. The first roadbump is the 'updated' time of a work... I guess we'd say that this is the most recent modification time of any of a work's pages? I'll add such a thing to wikisource/api. Sam Wilson 09:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: We would be using the wmflabs tools to provide the ebook files, wouldn't we? I believe the creation of the files in this case would be on-demand so I don't think we'd need to change the catalog whenever any page is modified. We'd only need to track the last modified date-time for wherever we're storing the OPDS data. And about this part, how do you think should we go about it? Ciridae (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: I finally had a look at the OPDS specification today and yes, you’re exactly right. I'm wondering where this catalog would be hosted (and how) Ciridae (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ciridae: My current thinking is that we would have a database on Toolforge (i.e. wmflabs.org, which is where ws-search is) that is built by collecting all the metadata from all the works on all Wikisources, and it would then serve up the OPDS on demand. The OPDS entries would then link to wsexport for delivery of the actual epubs. The metadata is the problem, but solvable with a combination of scraping HTML from wiki pages and looking things up on Wikidata. The scraping especially is a slow operation, hence the need for a database.

My experiments so far are sort of looking okay — the current bug is that the scraper hits big works like 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and attempts to treat it like a single item (e.g. how to find the last-modified date of that work? Let alone export it to an epub).

I'm also not sure how we'd divide up the ODPS catalogue: by genre perhaps? With the data coming from Wikidata. I think there must be some upper limit on the number of items in a single ODPS feed. Sam Wilson 23:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Samwilson: But do we want to provide all works on Wikisource through the catalog? I personally think that might be a bit too ambitious considering the quality of epubs generated by wsexport isn't great. (We should also provide mobipocket and PDF files.) How about we start with a few select categories only and expand from there? We can divide the catalog along various criteria (genre, topic etc) rather than having it as a single feed (which would make it easy to browse, for starters). How about all Featured Works to get started?

Oh, and if you have the time I'd love to have a few pointers on how I could help out technically. I haven't contributed code to any Wikimedia project and I'd like to help. Ciridae (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘

@Ciridae: Good point! I wonder if we a) limited it to validated categorized works; and b) made individual OPDS files for each point in the category hierarchy that had under say 100 works. Something like toolforge:ws-cat-browser with the addition that at each tree node where there are fewer than 100 child works we create a (static-built, fast-to-serve) ODPS file? I've never used more than a single OPDS file in e.g. FBReader, so I'm not sure what the optimum browsing system is, or what most people want from such a feed. It seems that this sort of thing is common for the top-level, which isn't a tree structure (but we could replicate our category tree breadcrubs in the section titles perhaps).

And as for contributing code: hurrah! Yes, I'd love to help you get started. What languages do you work in? Have you read mw:How to become a MediaWiki hacker? Wikisource also has its own Github org: https://github.com/wikisource . There's a million Lua things that could be worked on, on-wiki, too, with bringing more data in from Wikidata. The best project to start with is one that fixes a problem for you. :-) Join ##wikisource any time, if you want to chat.

Sam Wilson 00:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to standardize the {{table style}} template shorthand codes.[edit]

The shorthand codes of {{table style}} follow no logical sequence for easy recognition, and/or memorization. In addition, there are codes in the parsing table which are not listed and/or ever used.

I prepared a new shorthand table HERE to streamline the codes. The new parsing template HERE retains the old codes as well, not to damage the existing tables.

In the long term, the intention is to replace the old codes, replace rarely used codes with the standard CSS declarations, and eliminate unused codes.

Some stats: There are nearly (~24,000 pages linked to this template out of which, ~16,000 are from The Popular Science Monthly Project

Your input is most appreciated — Ineuw talk 04:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I prefer the current abbreviations and options. I can remember "lg" for large much more easily than "fs" followed by a number I can't remember. Also 92% is equivalent to "fine", so I'm not sure why you'd want to eliminate it, as it's one of the standard font reduction sizes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The long term intent should be to eliminate the system altogether. It is utterly opaque even to experienced non-initiates, and poses an impossible barrier to entry to new contributors. All this to save a few keystrokes. Hesperian 06:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
While this is a good point, I find the drudgery of manually formatting tables to be a much larger barrier. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: First, you can keep using the same codes. Second you fail to realize that there is no size change over a range of percentages as demonstrated in these images File:1536x864res.jpg and File: 1664x936res.jpg. using a code like "fs90" for "font-size of 90%" makes a lot more sense than "lg", "xs" "fine" etc. My general view is that there is very little esthetics in our text where proportional size would look better and the old coding makes it impossible to know. @Hesperian: as for eliminating it, I am completely against it. Live and learn. — Ineuw talk 06:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I can't keep using the same codes if we follow your proposal to change and delete current codes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support conditionally: if it's backwards-compatible, i.e. no "replacement" or "elimination". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
After a thorough rethink (and a good night's sleep), I understand your objections, and only add my codes to the structure and if it is accepted, I need the community's approval to replace the parsing template with this clean and ordered version.

As for Hesperian's suggestion of expanding the codes with their proper CSS declarations I have no objection, as long as the template remains for proofreading. — Ineuw talk 20:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Its a shame there isn't a way to seperate the formating "data" from the template structure ... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]

SpBot[edit]

I note that User:SpBot is running without discussion or community approval, though the edits seem useful (archiving discussions) and probably non-controversial. However, I do not know how the bot determines when a discussion thread is ready to be archived or what time frame is allowed for continued discussion, so those could be issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss again. BTW, my bot has a bot flag. --Euku (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, looks like it was simply never added to the official list when it was approved. I've now done that. Thanks for your speedy response! --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Mpaa (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

File:Dick Sands the Boy Captain.djvu[edit]

The scan File:Dick Sands the Boy Captain.djvu on Commons needs to have the Google notice stripped from the front of the file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done C. F. 06:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Life of Jesus[edit]

Can this page (and all its subpages) be moved to Life of Jesus (Renan), and any internal links repaired (if necessary)? There are other works with this title (including Strauss, transl. George Eliot), and so the original location is needed for disambiguation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Red Badge of Courage[edit]

Please remove Google notice / shift pages. We have a scan of the 1st book edition of File:The Red Badge of Courage (1896).djvu at Commons that needs the Google notice stripped, and the few proofread pages from the Index should be shifted after the notice removal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Explaining source for an alternative word indicated by Template:SIC[edit]

Sometimes when proofreading An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) I come across a word that appears to be a typo in the original, but I don't know immediately what it should have been. In that case I look at an older edition and a newer edition which I have to hand, and, making sure they agree, add a SIC. But I am disappointed that there seems to be nothing in the SIC syntax that enables me to state why I have done this. Am I missing something? Is there some way of adding hidden text that would be appropriate?--PeterR2 (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No, the template does not have provision for an explanation, but the correct word is hover text only. So if you don't know the correct word but want to give an explanation, you can put the explanation in parameter 2, in place of the correct word, which will appear as a hover text. Although the template is not meant for this function, {{Tooltip}} would be better. If you want truly hidden text, beside the word you can use <!-- explanation --> Hrishikes (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
+1 to this, use <!-- HTML comments --> if you want to leave an quick explanation for the reference of future editors. If you need a longer explanation, put <!-- see talk page --> and put your explanation on the talk page. Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want the readers to see your explanation, one other way is to footnote it with a user annotation:

<ref>{{user annotation|your explanation here.}}</ref>

That's far from being a preferred method on Wikisource but I think it has its place. Mudbringer (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that user annotation has its place in this case—any more than my taking a pen to a typo or making margin/footer notes in a local physical library book. It would become a "user annotated text" by definition, and proposed policy/guidelines state that "User annotated versions of works on Wikisource must ... have an unannotated 'clean text' elsewhere on Wikisource". Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive.org found a legal loophole[edit]

Please see https://blog.archive.org/2017/10/10/books-from-1923-to-1941-now-liberated/ . I wonder what this means, if anything, for Wikisource. This *is* a library, after all. NMaia (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There's already a thread up above on this issue, under Proposals. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Link: #Consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyrite law)Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Author bug[edit]

On pages such as Author:G. R. O'Reilly, authors with no death year listed here or at d: show up as living. In this case, someone published in 1891 is very likely not alive, so we should probably pages such as this added to a tracking category such as Category:Authors with missing death dates rather than default to be alive. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I filed an external bug at phab:T178143 for those who spotted that the page's title is malformed. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It's true! But sadly there isn't any way to determine from an Author page what the dates of their published works are. In this example, we can add birth and death dates to G. R. O'Reilly on Wikidata (d:Q18911925), and they are no longer in Category:Living authors (I've just done it). We can add birth and death dates on Wikidata even if we have no idea of when they died — well, we usually know within a century, but even if we don't know that we can give them the special Wikidata value of 'unknown'. And as for categories here, we do already try to extract a year from the birth date, and if it's longer than 110 years ago we don't class them as living. So this currently certainly errs on the side of more living authors than is correct but I think this is somewhat due to the scary legal stuff around data about living people. Perhaps we need to do more to direct editors here to add birth and death dates to Wikidata. A link with instructions or something (on the Author header itself, visible to anyone with the page on their watchlist or something)? I dunno what the best fix is. Sam Wilson 08:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The correct way to handle this is to utilise dates = component of the header and add flourishing data. @Samwilson: maybe we can look to adjust by where no date of birth or death that we can utilise either floruit or the pair work period start and work period end—whichever is used at WD—and plug them into dates parameter. It is my opinion that is butt ugly and unhelpful to just plug in vague birth and death dates of 19thC and 20thC. If we are looking to fill in dates of life having them filled with vague dates is no longer an indicator locally. I much prefer that we identify them as missing.— billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hm, yes you're quite right! I'm sorry. And I totally forgot that flourit dates are supported (they already work in the Author module). Sam Wilson 12:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Retroactive automated autopatrolling?[edit]

I'm looking a large number of similar unpatrolled edits that I'd've added to User:Wikisource-bot/patrol whitelist if I had known in advance. Anything to do with them besides going through them one by one? Prosody (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that I understand the question @Prosody:. If you are looking for patrolled edits by the bot, this should work special:log/patrol/Wikisource-bot, if you are wanting to see who did those patrolled edits, then click the number to see the edit. Skip anything marked "automatically ..." as they will be the bots own edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I was unclear, sorry. Wikisource-bot takes care of patrolling edits matching whitelisted filters as the edits are made, right? Is there any way to have edits matching a whitelisted filter patrolled after the fact? Prosody (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

en.wikisource vs wikisource[edit]

whats the difference? Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

English Wikisource (en.wikisource.org), is for works in English and similar languages like Anglo-Saxon and Scots. Multilingual Wikisource (wikisource.org) is for works that do not belong to a specific-language Wikisource, usually because no specific Wikisource exists for that language, or because the work is itself multilingual, or because of copyright restrictions on the language-specific Wikisource. Multilingual Wikisource also provides a portal to the various language-specific Wikisources. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-42[edit]

15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Indexed works containing multiple titles[edit]

Can someone please point me to cases of transcluded indexed works here which contain more than one whole major work (by the same author) within the text? I am trying to figure out how to best transclude Index:Sartor resartus; and, On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history.djvu, being that it contains two major works. Both works are also already present separately here at WS, albeit unindexed. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Index:Austen - Northanger Abbey. Persuasion, vol. I, 1818.djvu is one, where each work has been transcluded into a top-level mainspace set of pages. I'd say in general you can create separate top-level mainspace pages for each work in this sort of situation. Or, in the case of anthologies and similar, two structures, one for the actual published structure and one for the logical separate-work one (like we do for serial works). Sam Wilson 22:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: So perhaps Sartor Resartus and On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History (Macmillan) as one structure (if I understand) that lists both works, and Sartor Resartus (Macmillan) & On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History (Macmillan) as separate-work structures? with "Macmillan" serving the purpose for disambiguation? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Yeah, sounds about right. I wouldn't worry about disambiguating unless there's a clash, so would go with e.g.:
Sam Wilson 23:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I've usually just done one super-page with two sub-pages, but I've never done ones where the two works are so extensive. Mine are more along the lines of Herald Angels, and The Holly & Ivy or The Holly & the Ivy, and Twelve Articles. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Me too, but I'm also keen about them having their own top-level pages as they are actually stand-alone works and doing it that way makes a bunch of things more fun, e.g. they get their own wikidata items and so can be catalogued separately (as well as together), and so it hepls with discoverability. Moll Flanders and Roxana is another example (although, I think there's a slight mess here too because there are other editions of those books on Wikisource as well). Oh, and in Londonjackbooks' case above, would we end up with e.g. Sartor Resartus and On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History/On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History/Chapter 1... that's a long title (but probably the correct one)! Sam Wilson 23:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all! I will wait until my second cup of coffee before I give it a go :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would have done them as subpages of the printed edition, then done redirects from the actual titles to the subpages. It stays true to the published work, and it allows for future editions of the work. It is how we have handled multiple poetic works. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that is likely the correct way. Title length shouldn't really be an issue. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking for small technical tasks+mentors for new contributors - got something in mind?[edit]

Hi everybody! Google Code-in (GCI) will soon take place again - a seven week long contest for 13-17 year old students to contribute to free software projects. Tasks should take an experienced contributed about two-three hours and can be of the categories Code, Documentation/Training, Outreach/Research, Quality Assurance, and User Interface/Design. Do you have an idea for a task and could you imagine mentoring that task? For example, do you have something on mind that needs documentation, research, some gadget or template issues on your "To do" list but you never had the time, and can imagine enjoying mentoring such a task to help a new contributor? If yes, please check out mw:Google Code-in/2017 and become a mentor! Thanks in advance! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've signed up as a mentor for the Code-in, so if anyone knows of Wikisource-related little things I'd be very happy to help students work on these! :-) Sam Wilson 23:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Do not know how easy: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T173385 .— Mpaa (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Musical Notation editor would be nice. user:Beeswaxcandle is the expert there; do not know how easy it could be. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, musical notation editor would be nice. I think the simplest and most feasible solution would be to write a script that can take the LilyPond output from an established WYSIWYG music editor and convert it to be compatible with the Score plugin. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Signed up as a mentor for table layout analysis and design. — Ineuw talk 19:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Wikisource keyboard hotkey assignments[edit]

Wikipedia has a set of keyboard key assignments using the combinations of the Alt+Shift+character Keys. Is there an Alt+Shift key combination in Wikisource for opening/closing the header/footer in edit mode? If not, can this be assigned to the combination of Alt+Shift+h somehow ? — Ineuw talk 00:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That would need to be separate javascript, and it would probably best to be added into the proofread page extension rather than a separate overlay. I suggest that put in a phabricator request. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, will do it later today. — Ineuw talk 19:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Alt+Shift+h already invokes page history throughout all the sisters and us, so it would be unacceptable to use it for something else. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The key combination was just an idea without checking the existing key assignments. I leave the actual key assignment up to the programmers. — Ineuw talk 07:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject DNB: Hyphens, en dashes and redirects[edit]

I had a look in the archives of Scriptorium and could not find a discussion on this issue.

Some editors on Wikipedia are concerned that the DNB templates that link to articles on Wikisource display dash rather than ndash in article titles. They want them changed to ndash. In the case of the DNB articles on Wikisource these are disambiguation extensions and do not form part of the original DNB text. A work around for the differences in style between Wikipedia and Wikisource over the use of dash and ndash would be to provide redirects on Wikipedia for those DNB articles that have date range extensions.

To centralise the discussion please add any comments to "Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB#Hyphens, en dashes and redirects" on the wisdom or otherwise of providing such redirects. -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: The issue that you raise is not DNB specific. The use of a hyphen is for all separation as part of our manual style. So bang away at that page if you choose, however, the issue is bigger and broader. It is author pages, and many pages. I think that enWP has to get over the fact that we don't use an en dash and move on. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The guidance about hyphens is in Help:Disambiguation, the discussion will be in the archives of this place, and it will be long ago. I would guess it took place in 2009, 2010 and possibly more in 2011. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
more drama on english = meh. not a reason to change a thing. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Lua can help, surely? I'm adding to the linked talk page. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-43[edit]

18:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Use of Wikidata[edit]

Hi, Is there any plan to use Wikidata, at least for authors? On the French WS, we already use it for authors, and we are in the process to use it for works. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

We already use it for authors. Or is there a more specific use you are asking about? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: Currently used for birth, death, image, and authority control, where not overridden with local data. Insufficient given and surname data at WD to be utilised for data pull, though I have populated a lot. With regard to works, we are waaaaaay behind the curve of getting data in place, and we pretty much await good editing tools that WD is looking to implement. There was discussion in the Wikisource-L mailing list last week about the upcoming conference and what we thought could be pushed.

I would love to be able to utilise it for licence tags one day too. We still have plenty of local override fields in play and not many people remove it from old author pages, and check the pull from WD — noting that the community requested that all data be checked prior to removal. There are plenty of maintenance categories to identify where data is surplus to requirements. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit of a pain at the moment to enter work/edition data at Wikidata, but I also think that we'd get better at it if we were using it more. I'd love to do more work on bringing bits of edition data back here into the header template. Perhaps we could start with some data that we don't currently have here on a large scale, such as publisher? We could populate subcats of Category:Works by publisher pretty easily, and I think making 'publisher' clearer would help with reinforcing the point that what we host here are specific editions that relate back to an existing publication. We could even do it without jumping the editing-to-work link on WD if we wanted to keep it simple to start with. —Sam Wilson 02:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on the work flow you expect? Because right now, most copies on Wikisource don't even have a data item in existence on Wikidata for that edition yet. Wikidata has the work data item, if it has anything. So data items would first have to be created for the editions we have. We can't edit what doesn't exist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: I actually feel that we have a better scope and chance of getting metadata input from Commons and working with the structured data project. That enables us to push from there, and more able to have a workable input form (well I hope that is happening). From there we know that we have "scan image" property link back to an edition, and we know/see that an index: page is created, so able to link through the wikisource index property. Commons sees and records that triangle. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good point about Commons' structured data. I guess I figure that ultimately, the metadata for our editions' scan on Commons will also come from Wikidata (as it's different from most metadata on Commons, in that it is welcome on Wikidata). I don't want to wait though. :-) Although there's lots of items missing from Wikidata, it's not that hard to add them for editions, especially when adding new works here when it would mean that one needn't add that same data here at all. Not that I'm against someone working on pulling the data from Commons of course! :) I should like to have another little Lua project here, if it were seen to be useful (e.g. the publisher categorizing I mentioned). Sam Wilson 04:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata for Proofreadpage index template[edit]

I meant to create a new topic but coincidentally this related topic was already started, so I'm adding it as a subheader. Please check the discussion I started at MediaWiki_talk:Proofreadpage_index_template#Wikidata. NMaia (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Responded there. Short answer: it's impractical and could't be used unless the data item for that edition was first created and filled at Wikidata. And that wouldn't actually save on any work. It would be more useful to be able to go the other way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-44[edit]

00:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Twitter tweet topic suggestions[edit]

My own knowledge of the stores/pulse of Wikisource is limited, so I am requesting ongoing help with suggestions for English Wikisource Twitter tweet topics. I will create a User subpage for that purpose for now for anyone who would like to offer suggestions. Topics can be about projects, discussions, collaborations, maintenance tasks, "on this day" facts, text content, trivia, etc. Primary focus is on Wikisource promotion to encourage collaboration/contribution. Thanks for any help. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

i would tweet, POTM and some @rosiestep WIR referencing, i.e. [[11] and [12]. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I moved your suggestion to a User subpage for ongoing suggestions so we don't take up space here. I also left a comment. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-45[edit]

18:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hey everyone,

The Community Wishlist Survey is the process when the Wikimedia communities decide what the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech should work on over the next year.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can post technical proposals from now until November 20. The communities will vote on the proposals between November 28 and December 12. You can read more on the 2017 wishlist survey page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Minimum copyright renewal length?[edit]

Having been researching the copyright for the issues of Analog Science Fiction and Fact, I came across one renewal of the vol. 30 no. 5 (January 1943) issue that was made on 31st December 1969. I was under the belief that the renewal must be made in the 27th year, meaning it should have been made in either 1970 or 1971. Does this make the renewal invalid? Or, since it was made within a day of 1970, is it still a valid renewal? -Einstein95 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Most monthly magazines were actually published in the month before, to be on newsstands at the start of the month. For example, note on Page:US_Copyright_Office_-_Renewal_Registrations_-_1950.djvu/30:
EUPHORBIA, by Gene Stratton Porter. © Jeannette Porter Meehan (C)
(In Good housekeeping, Jan. 1923) © 20Dec22, B567091. R56308, 21Dec49.
where the January issue of Good Housekeeping is copyrighted the previous December.
Moreover, I'm uncomfortable splitting hairs like that; I don't think we have the skill to judge correctly all the details about whether a slightly off renewal is correct enough to survive a court challenge.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, I forgot that the copyright application is the month before. I guess that the renewal was made at almost the last minute. -Einstein95 (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Authority control for works and edition[edit]

If a Wikisource mainspace page represents a specific edition of a work, how should this be managed with the {{authority control}} template when the AC data is split across the Wikidata work and edition items? Generally, that template is taking statement from Wikidata's edition item. However, these often don't contain all the AC data we might want at Wikisource.

For example Treasure Island (1911) (1911 ed.) has a Wikidata edition item (d:Q14944010) with an IA ID, LCCNbook, OCLC control number and an Open Library ID, but the work item (d:Q185118) also contains the VIAF ID for the work in general, along with many others. I think all these identifiers are useful on the Wikisource page?

What is the correct way to handle these case? Remove WS AC data that is on the edition page, but leave the work item AC data entered manually? Or is there a way for the {{authority control}} template to follow the P629 (edition or translation of) property if extant and also include AC data from that page? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the best approach, if the community agrees that AC data from d:Q185118 should be displayed on Treasure Island (1911), is to try to modify {{authority control}} to follow the relevant property and retrieve them that way. Manual entry should also be acceptable if desired, but I'd avoid it if the alternative is feasible. It's pretty much the same issue as linking to w:Treasure Island in the header of Treasure Island (1911). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
My opinion: The authority control data are separate because they indicate different things. The VIAF for the work is for the work in general, not for that edition, and so should be displayed with the work page only. The edition we have should point to a work (versions) page on WS where readers can access information about the work in general. We shouldn't mix work and edition data because that will confuse editors and readers alike. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but the vast majority of mainspace pages at Wikisource don't have a versions page until they get a second version. This rarely happens in the first place, and for a work that only ever had one edition, will never happen. Perhaps, if the AC template can indeed follow the "edition of" property, it could have a "work" and "edition" split? Would also save the user having to know to find the "version/work" page at Wikisource to find the VIAF link? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The (partial) solution at the Italian Wikisource is to have a new namespace called Opera: (Work: in Italian). We might want to consider that approach. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. In the meantime, while I check it out, I will try to avoid any edit that drops an AC field from WS, even if it means duplicating data like VIAF between a WS mainspace (i.e. edition) page and the WD work page for now. There are not many examples of this anyway - most duplicate WS/WD data appears to be OCLC edition data which already exists at WD. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment at Wikidata, edition data goes on the edition, and the work data goes on the work, we just pull the data for the appropriate item. Why would we do different If we are finding that there is a huge data hole, then maybe we can consider additional data display. I would hesitate to do that at this point due to the lack of pairs of work and editions. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand that - it just seemed it might be valuable for a reader to be able to get to (say) the VIAF record or ISFDB title record from our WS page, which is actually an edition page, without needing a wrapper around every page to provide something for WD to hook up to as a work to hang that work AC data on.
Perhaps it's not even a problem that needs solving? I was just noting that we have pages that link to "work" items and some that link to "editions", and unsure how to reconcile the two. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a big discussion that is start starting to be resolved on various Wikisources. I've mentioned how the Italians are approaching the issue. And the French have been going through and splitting editions from works—often adding new editions in the process. On Wikidata, they're discussing data structure and what we mean by "work" and "edition", so the whole discussion is still very much in its early stages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
While we could, I don't overly fuss the current linking of authorities as our book data is so scarce anyway, and if you are putting it into WD correctly, then we an easily modify its presentation here. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
this is an issue in flux, and i would look to the wikicite people to arrive at a consensus. we can then pull the wikidata for work or edition as decided on. would not want to pre-decide an ontology that would make for rework. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds sensible, I'm happy to wait for the Wikicite/Wikidata people to get it set up how they want it and do it their way, when it happens. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Page:The mystic test book.djvu/119[edit]

I made a start on a template at {{MTBlayout}} but a template with 104 switches in it seems to be a case of doing it wrong.

This should be LUA if done at all? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Why does it need to be a template at all? Isn't it just a one-off table of images, which can just be hard-coded directly into Page:The mystic test book.djvu/119? Is there scope for re-use of this table? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
It can be done as hard-coding, but the same layout is duplicated on a number of pages, and typing up a LOT of table markup is error-prone. If you want to assist feel free...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know there are permuted layouts on other pages. I though this was just a one-off table. I think a two-level template would be the best bet. Then you can have the table layout code at {{MTBlayout}} and the code that selects the card image at something like (say) {{MTBcardimg}}. The latter would contain just enough markup to render a single card based on suit and number, and the former would call it 52 times. The trade-off is, I think, a lot of parameter-passing in {{MTBlayout}}, but that's just copy-pasting. The two-level system is how {{table style}} and {{custom rule}} work. Lua might make it more concise, but I don't have enough of an idea to tell you how that might be done. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I set up a subtemplate to use. I suggest that you subst the layout template on all the pages to prevent template overload. The subtemplate is called with safesubst to allow for this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
And then cleanup, It's a shame there isn't an #output: function, to only use the output from the switch parser function as opposed to a blind substitution, of the entire switch logic ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the global ban policy[edit]

Hello. Some changes to the community global ban policy have been proposed. Your comments are welcome at m:Requests for comment/Improvement of global ban policy. Please translate this message to your language, if needed. Cordially. Matiia (Matiia) 00:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Better OCR?[edit]

Can a better ocr be obtained for this work Index:A Treatise on the Culture of the Vine and, and the Art of Making Wine.pdf? The ocr from the pdf is pretty bad and so is the ocr obtained from the ocr button. I also tried the google ocr button and that was pretty bad also. Jpez (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: Often the google scans from early days were not of the best resolution for good OCR. You can always try uploading the work to archive.org and see what they can do with the scan and reprocess the OCR. From there uploading with toollabs:ia-upload will enable you to bring it over in a djvu format, if preferred. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This Google book has been imported to the IA already: https://archive.org/details/atreatiseoncult00busbgoog A quick look at the full text at the IA seems to show a rather better (but still pretty poor in absolute terms) OCR outcome. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes it looks like it's the scan quality which is to blame so I don't think any other ocr software would do a better job than what we've got here. @Inductiveload: I'm aware of the IA copy but I didn't like how some random pages were in colour and I thought it was an inferior scan. So I guess I'll just have to work with what I've got here. Thanks. Jpez (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Checked Hathi Trust? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Just had a look. It's there but limited search for me. Jpez (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
All they have is a modern 1979 edition, that will be limited search for everyone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
i see there is a 1979. reprint [16] of the 1825 original [17] works before around 1870 are bad ocr’s because typeface issues. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I copy-pasted the text from the pdf file downloaded from Gbooks, and the ocr is actually pretty good. Somehow it got all mangled when it was uploaded to Commons. Mudbringer (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting @Mudbringer: I wouldn't have thought it would've been screwed up by commons like that.Jpez (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
the google ocr is better than the open source ocr from IA. for some language character sets, it is all they have, and they cut and paste routinely.Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Working with Once a Week, New Series, Volume VII (1871) — anyone got time to assist there?[edit]

GinnevraDubois (talkcontribs) has been uploading works from Once a Week. Recently they are being loaded as root works, rather than as subpages to the journal. Is someone available to with the contributor to get the works aligned to style, and to get some improved source data? We have components in the mix already Special:PrefixIndex/Once a Week (magazine). Thanks if you can. If no-one can, then I will look at it later in the week when I have a little more time. (I will note that I need to build a linking template for the works from the author pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Index not fully transcluded[edit]

A Treatise on Soap-Making was a quirky January 2017 PotM, and is marked as completed at PotM proposals, but it doesn't seem to have been fully transcluded with pages linked to from the TOC. Was this an oversight? I can probably get to transcluding it tomorrow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It needs transcluding and it is marked as needing it, so it is complying there. I will admit that I haven't been checking Category:Transclusion check required as regularly as I did due to other maintenance work. `— billinghurst sDrewth
Thanks. Wasn't at the helm as expected today, but I will try to get to it tomorrow; and I'll put the transclusion check Cat link on my housekeeping page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-46[edit]

19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Obvious errors in source[edit]

What's the policy for obvious errors (e.g. typos of common words) in the source text? Should they be transcribed verbatim with some kind of template to indicate the correct word? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Use {{SIC}} (which indicates a replacement in the text) or {{sic}} (which leaves no mark in the displayed text, but lets bots and problem searchers know that you've checked the word and it matches the scan.) Your choice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
But do keep in mind that some words have simply been spelled differently in the past. We don't mark words simply because they were spelled differently, but rather because they are spelled incorrectly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, for scanned texts, what you see is what you transcribe. @Grover cleveland: As stated we can have a "editorial commentary", it is mentioned in some of our Help: pages, though maybe not sufficiently. From the {{welcome}} message, which page link would you have expected to find that guidance? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, to be honest -- I'm more of a searcher than a follower of links :) Thanks for the feedback! Grover cleveland (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Second Edition of Wikisource Conference during 2018 at Strasbourg[edit]

Saluton ĉiuj,

Note: This message is mostly a duplicate of the the wikisource-l announce made on mailing list.

At Strasbourg, we want to organize a second edition of the Wikisource Conference during 2018. Things are falling into place over here, but before we go further, we need to know what kind of event format the community want:

  • how many attendees,
  • coming from where,
  • only wikisourcerers/wikimedians, or also open to a wider public like good potential institutional partners,
  • for how long,
  • in how many rooms with which capacity

We might go with the same format as Vienna, or we might go for something a bit different. Your feedback will be predominant in this decision.

In term of calendar, at first November have been proposed. That would let almost a full year to prepare the event, which might not be too much. We might also couple the event with "bilbiothèque idéale" (ideal library) an annual event which occurs usually in September. We do have institutional internal contact to give us more information about such a possibility, but it also need to be fine for wikisourcerers.

Be bold about gathering feedback from your local community, and let me know if there are other canals/tools you would like to see used for further organization, ie. Meta.

Ĝis baldaŭ, Psychoslave (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Lists of author works[edit]

Noting that 'Lists' as reference material are not desirable in the Main, I was wondering if it is permissible to maintain lists in Author-space as subpages (exs.)—or should they instead remain in User-space? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have always considered the WWI reference to lists to be seen as related to published works (per the top of that page), as such our collection in main ns. We have always considered Portal: and Author: nss as curated spaces, so I would have said, go ahead where it is output to curate main namespace.

If we think we need to better express that WWI and published works/main ns relationship, then let us do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

How crazy am I allowed to get? I would also like to add a list of Coates' Greek mythology poetry, perhaps a Flora list, Fauna...? Also, @Billinghurst:, I am not quite sure what you meant by your last sentence. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
WS:WWI should clearly be showing that inclusion criteria relates to published works in main namespace. Implicitly we need to indicate that other nss are supportive of main nss and their processes work accordingly. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
My impression is that our Author: namespace lists items we have, or could have. We typically have opted not to include Authors whose works are not in PD. Are we planning to change that to allow authors whose works are hosted somewhere on-line? If so, we run the risk of turning into a link farm with the need to investigate whether or not our links point to works that are legitimately hosted. I for one would not want to begin allowing links to sites that illegally host works that are under copyright, nor would want to devote community effort to such investigation. --EncycloPetey (talk)
The war poetry list points to works strictly available at WS... I can see how the magazines & music lists (the latter in particular) may push the envelope. Magazines, however, link solely to WS versions, etc. pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
PS: @EncycloPetey: I agree that links should lead to WS works, and will reconsider/perhaps rework the music list. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Good specific point EP. Author pages and portal pages are contextual and supportive to our main namespace, or what could be in namespace. My commentary was implicitly slanted to subpages to author.

LJB: For the purpose of completeness, (my opinion only) I think listing music for an established and prolific author is fine as part of a compilation, and as the music was published. I would not think that we would do the same for people primarily known for their music, photography, art works where the listing the works is not usually focusing on published works we can reproduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Calling it a night, but thanks for your time. I will consider all of the above comments. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Reworked Author:Florence Earle Coates/Music to link only to WS works. Will look over What Wikisource Includes for possible wording improvement/clarity. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of translation[edit]

Is this translation of a sonnet, published in The Romanic Review in 1925, out of copyright? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

i would say - PD-not renewed. going to the LOC cocat database (sorry no permalink) for "Romanic review" shows first registration in 1951 for "Pattern at the center". then 1962 then 1978, nothing near 1953 renewal. [22] and hathi pdfs show no hits in 1953 [23], [24] - your search may vary. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Cocat won't have renewals of works published in 1925. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11800 shows renewals for 1932 and 1941 and 1942, but not 1925. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html has a list of "all of the more than 1000 periodicals that renewed issue copyrights (for 1923-1950 issues) between 1950 and 1977, all the periodicals with contribution renewals made between 1950 and 1965", and doesn't mention The Romanic Review. I'd like to see more details, including specifically the translator's name, before saying it's clearly not renewed; there could be a renewal that doesn't mention the Romanic Review, or one with a typo in the name, and I'm assuming the underlying work is well and clearly PD, but it seems to be {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Slowking4 and Prosfilaes! @Prosfilaes: I believe the translator is w:Fidelino de Figueiredo. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
no hits there. given the renewal of four excerpts only, i would be tempted to upload all romanic review before 1978, including IA [25] and then go digitize the missing issues and block out the four exceptions to PD. [26] Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I think everything before Romanic review. Vol. 54, no. 3, Oct. 1963, is okay, but anything 1964 on just needed a copyright notice, not any notice with the Copyright Office. (The last two 1963 issues were renewed.) It would be nice to have volume 16 as scans instead of just one sonnet, but I don't see scans available online.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again Slowking4 and Prosfilaes, for your time and research. I went ahead and created Love is a fire that burns yet burns unseen. (I know it's not ideal, but it's all I can do right now.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference Tooltips[edit]

Are we able to use Reference Tooltips here on wikisource the way it is used on wikipedia. I think it would make be a great addition for our readers. Jpez (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: it is a gadget, you should be able to use it here (said hoping that the code is fully pathed to allow that). You should even be able to set it to work globally if you put it in your meta global files, see local and global links in your preferences.
  • to either your local common.js file or meta global.js page
mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
  • to either your local common.css file or meta global.css page
@import url('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css');
billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Billinghurst: I will try it later. What does the community think of having on as default for all users? Jpez (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I tried both approaches but no joy. Jpez (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez: I have updated the syntax used in your global.css per my comment. Maybe try it again. Otherwise we may have to User:Yaur rand to tell us what we are not doing. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
and just checking that you have the gadget "Navigation popups" turned off. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Cite link label group[edit]

could an admin please create the following reference label pages? it is for a work with roman and numeric footnotes - here are the wikipedia examples : [27]; [28] ; [29] see also w:Help:Cite_link_labels thanks. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously with the consensus to be that we do not replicate the style of the individual work, and to instead continue with our default/house style. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambig with multi-author[edit]

Does naming a page something like Song (Lyricist/Composer) cause anything to break due to the slash in the title? Is Song (Lyricist and Composer) preferable? Is Song (Lyricist) sufficient, since most versions here will be lyrics only anyway? Just wondering what others think. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it would help commenters to understand better if we could see the content to be placed on this hypothetical page. I'm totally lost. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)